He has also been crystal clear that he would never had done what the Eagles did...

Birdwatcher

May 2 2016, 12:53 AM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 2 2016, 12:45 AM)

He has also been crystal clear that he would never had done what the Eagles did...

He also picked Couch over McNabb way back when, it is a total crap shoot RF, but if this kid is the real deal it could be, well let's not go there yet. They at least caught my interest, a real boom or bust choice, but since we are used to bust I will just sit back and watch with mild interest, the QB merry go round was getting nauseating.

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 01:28 AM

QUOTE (Birdwatcher @ May 2 2016, 01:53 AM)

He also picked Couch over McNabb way back when, it is a total crap shoot RF, but if this kid is the real deal it could be, well let's not go there yet. They at least caught my interest, a real boom or bust choice, but since we are used to bust I will just sit back and watch with mild interest, the QB merry go round was getting nauseating.

actually he didn't.....he had McKnoan ranked first, Culpepper 2nd and Mcnabb 3rd...and he admits what his mistake was and I think it is the same that could be done with Wentz....seeing him play in just a few games his senior year...the body of work for Wentz is limited....he went 2-5 and his replacement when he got hurt.....that worries me...not so much about what it says about his backup but what it says about the competition.

I hope he is awesome but I am concerned about what we gave up and who was making the pick and evaluation.

That and 2 other teams passed on him and they both need a QB.....

keep your fingers crossed

Zero

May 2 2016, 05:06 AM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 2 2016, 02:28 AM)

That and 2 other teams passed on him and they both need a QB.....

I'm not buying this part. It was pretty much agreed by most analysts that Goff was the QB who was ready to start and that Wentz needed a year or so. It can be argued that Cleveland needed a QB, but they signed RG3 and have more needs than most any other team in the NFL except maybe Tennessee. With that set-up, and the likelihood that they'll be drafting early again next year, it makes more sense for them to take the bounty the Eagles paid for Wentz and do some team building.

Otherwise, I agree it's a risk/reward decision that I give them credit for making and hope they were right.

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 08:56 AM

QUOTE (Zero @ May 2 2016, 06:06 AM)

I'm not buying this part. It was pretty much agreed by most analysts that Goff was the QB who was ready to start and that Wentz needed a year or so. It can be argued that Cleveland needed a QB, but they signed RG3 and have more needs than most any other team in the NFL except maybe Tennessee. With that set-up, and the likelihood that they'll be drafting early again next year, it makes more sense for them to take the bounty the Eagles paid for Wentz and do some team building.

Otherwise, I agree it's a risk/reward decision that I give them credit for making and hope they were right.

The biggest need in Cleveland is a transformitive QB...and yet, with Hugh Jackson's input, they passed. Think about this.....they have 30 million in cap space and they have high draft pick position......they decide to take Griffin over Wentz who would have been a cheaper hit against the cap. They could have used some of that cap space to fill their "needs".

They may be wrong...they even admitted it but they felt the CHANCE to get more draft picks and roll with a failed starter was the better option than take Wentz. This is not the old Browns...their FO is heavy on predictive analytics. Those analytics do not favor Wentz. That is what worries me.

mcnabbulous

May 2 2016, 10:32 AM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 2 2016, 08:56 AM)

The biggest need in Cleveland is a transformitive QB...and yet, with Hugh Jackson's input, they passed. Think about this.....they have 30 million in cap space and they have high draft pick position......they decide to take Griffin over Wentz who would have been a cheaper hit against the cap. They could have used some of that cap space to fill their "needs".

They may be wrong...they even admitted it but they felt the CHANCE to get more draft picks and roll with a failed starter was the better option than take Wentz. This is not the old Browns...their FO is heavy on predictive analytics. Those analytics do not favor Wentz. That is what worries me.

It's definitely an interesting choice by Cleveland. I'd feel better about them bungling that decision if it was the old guard. The fact that it's these new guys is a bit troubling, but it's not as though DePodesta is a football savant.

Any time you draft a QB early, it's a risk/reward proposition. The fact that we had to give up so many picks makes it extra risky, meaning the reward better pay off. The nice thing is that Wentz has the upside to make that happen. I'd be much less excited if they made the same play for Goff.

Zero

May 2 2016, 12:30 PM

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 2 2016, 11:32 AM)

It's definitely an interesting choice by Cleveland. I'd feel better about them bungling that decision if it was the old guard. The fact that it's these new guys is a bit troubling, but it's not as though DePodesta is a football savant.

Any time you draft a QB early, it's a risk/reward proposition. The fact that we had to give up so many picks makes it extra risky, meaning the reward better pay off. The nice thing is that Wentz has the upside to make that happen. I'd be much less excited if they made the same play for Goff.

I've heard people opine that Cleveland's draft was puzzling at best. We'll see.

mcnabbulous

May 2 2016, 01:01 PM

QUOTE (Zero @ May 2 2016, 12:30 PM)

I've heard people opine that Cleveland's draft was puzzling at best. We'll see.

They seemed to buy heavy at a couple positions they've been weak at. It kind of makes sense if you accept that most draft picks will fail.

Ron Wolfe used to say that if he hit on 1/3, it would be a success. They've been so bad at WR, that if 2/5 guys they drafted turn out good, they've solved that problem.

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 01:35 PM

QUOTE (Zero @ May 2 2016, 01:30 PM)

I've heard people opine that Cleveland's draft was puzzling at best. We'll see.

Not sure who those "people" were but every single draft rating I saw had the Browns draft a full grade better than the Eagles. I am sure there may be some I missed but the majority think the Browns did well and certainly better than the Eagles.

nephillymike

May 2 2016, 08:57 PM

RF your research and my tinkering has shown that the draft QB high route was about a 36% of getting a multi year PB QB while going the multiple 2-3rd round route (3 picks in 2 years) was about a 26% success route of getting a multi Year PB QB.

Not sure what the "sign a FA QB" route yields, but the fact that the one route is 2-1 against while the other is 3-1 against will lead any hindsight analysis to yield scary numbers.

They don't grow on trees and we need one, how else to get them?

People forget how much a crap shoot the draft is.

Most other positions have the same failure rates when judging success as multiple PB's. It's just that QB is so visible.

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 09:02 PM

QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 2 2016, 09:57 PM)

RF your research and my tinkering has shown that the draft QB high route was about a 36% of getting a multi year PB QB while going the multiple 2-3rd round route (3 picks in 2 years) was about a 26% success route of getting a multi Year PB QB.

Not sure what the "sign a FA QB" route yields, but the fact that the one route is 2-1 against while the other is 3-1 against will lead any hindsight analysis to yield scary numbers.

They don't grow on trees and we need one, how else to get them?

People forget how much a crap shoot the draft is.

Most other positions have the same failure rates when judging success as multiple PB's. It's just that QB is so visible.

They were at 13.....that falls into the area of our research.....and they would still have had the CB spot filled and 3 more draft picks AND a QB.....Paxton Lynch....lol

nephillymike

May 2 2016, 09:19 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 2 2016, 09:02 PM)

They were at 13.....that falls into the area of our research.....and they would still have had the CB spot filled and 3 more draft picks AND a QB.....Paxton Lynch....lol

What was the range of the first round QB's who were included?

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 09:20 PM

QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 2 2016, 10:19 PM)

What was the range of the first round QB's who were included?

1-15

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 09:23 PM

If you look at the entire first round about 1 in 4 picks makes multiple PBs.

nephillymike

May 2 2016, 09:45 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 2 2016, 09:23 PM)

If you look at the entire first round about 1 in 4 picks makes multiple PBs.

1 in 3 for top 15, 1 in 4 for 1st overall. Seems about right.

BTW, Lynch went 26th so he's NOT in the study!!

Don Howie wouldn't have reached for him at 13!!

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 09:58 PM

QUOTE (nephillymike @ May 2 2016, 10:45 PM)

1 in 3 for top 15, 1 in 4 for 1st overall. Seems about right.

BTW, Lynch went 26th so he's NOT in the study!!

Don Howie wouldn't have reached for him at 13!!

Long arms Howie would have no problem doing that....and then he would say he talked to the janitor at Baltimore who told him they were going to trade up and take him at 14....

How many times will that little weasel use that BS....ever time he reaches for a guy he has a story that someone told him they were going to draft him...

mcnabbulous

May 2 2016, 10:06 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 2 2016, 09:58 PM)

Long arms Howie would have no problem doing that....and then he would say he talked to the janitor at Baltimore who told him they were going to trade up and take him at 14....

How many times will that little weasel use that BS....ever time he reaches for a guy he has a story that someone told him they were going to draft him...

What do you think his real rationale is for taking guys so much higher than their perceived value?

Just simply being enamored with specific players? Or just poor evaluation compared to the rest of the league?

nephillymike

May 2 2016, 10:11 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 2 2016, 09:58 PM)

Long arms Howie would have no problem doing that....and then he would say he talked to the janitor at Baltimore who told him they were going to trade up and take him at 14....

How many times will that little weasel use that BS....ever time he reaches for a guy he has a story that someone told him they were going to draft him...

True

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 10:11 PM

I think he is always trying to prove he is a super smart "football" guy because he really is not well respected in the league and he knows it.

Paul Domowitch had an article on that very thing a few weeks back. He spoke to a lot of his FO contacts around the league and the comments were not flattering. The guys that left here and spread around the league spread the word.....on top of his goofy draft picks.

Now I think he is even more emboldened by Lurie to the point where I think he figures if he is going out he will go out with a bang.....risk big, win big.

nephillymike

May 2 2016, 10:21 PM

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 2 2016, 10:06 PM)

What do you think his real rationale is for taking guys so much higher than their perceived value?

Just simply being enamored with specific players? Or just poor evaluation compared to the rest of the league?

This year he did that A LOT.

Just one mans opinion, although based on the results, i'd think I'd have some othrs who might agree.

My concern going in, and my fear coming out of the draft is that plain and simple, they weren't prepared.

When you don't do all the homework necessary, your tiers of the draft tend to be too shallow as you do not have enough intel on as many prospects, so your draft board is shallow. Rather than having the comfort that I can draft any of these 25 players in this tier and get the same likelihood of success, maybe your tier only contains 15 players. Then you are less likely to trade back, more likely to take the guy you know, and so it happens. If you have a firmer grasp of everyone you can then whittle it down and remove character concerns. If you don't have time, you can't be so picky.In other years. Howie traded back a lot. They weren't prepared. That hurts more in the 4th-7th rounds as it is tougher findning info about them than the stars at the top.

I would like to think that they at least would look and say, we like this guy at 79, but other people have him a lot lower, let's re-look at it and see if we're missing anything. It doesn't seem that they did that.

mcnabbulous

May 2 2016, 10:21 PM

I think the move for Wentz aligns with that, but "reaching" for draft picks seems to fly in the face of that logic. You would think if he wanted to prove to be football savvy, he would be trying to land guys who rank high on these lists.

I really am convinced this is analytics based stuff. Specifically PFF. They loved Seumalo, Smallwood had some intriguing rankings in some specific categories, and Big V ranked really highly with them last year.

I think it's a combination of looking for scheme specific guys who scored favorably in some specific metrics that appealed to them. For instance, pass blocking along the OL.

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 10:25 PM

Don't you find it odd that they trumpet a guy's pass blocking skill for an offense that will be run heavy?

mcnabbulous

May 2 2016, 10:53 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 2 2016, 10:25 PM)

Don't you find it odd that they trumpet a guy's pass blocking skill for an offense that will be run heavy?

I think run blocking is a more teachable skill from a technique perspective, but pass blocking takes some more natural ability. Rarely have I seen those guys who are heralded as great college run blockers get dramatically better pass blocking.

I also don't know how run heavy we will be. That's just not how the league is trending. Maybe immediately, but once Wentz develops, I would expect us to drop back 60% of the time.

Reality Fan

May 2 2016, 11:21 PM

The Chiefs were close to 50/50

mcnabbulous

May 3 2016, 08:49 AM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 2 2016, 11:21 PM)

The Chiefs were close to 50/50

I guess my thinking is that Wentz will become our best offensive player (much better than Alex Smith) and at that time it will only make sense to put the ball in his hands more often.

Reality Fan

May 3 2016, 10:51 AM

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 3 2016, 09:49 AM)

I guess my thinking is that Wentz will become our best offensive player (much better than Alex Smith) and at that time it will only make sense to put the ball in his hands more often.

At this point I hope he is at least as good...that has to be a bare minimum.

mcnabbulous

May 3 2016, 10:53 AM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 10:51 AM)

At this point I hope he is at least as good...that has to be a bare minimum.

Oh I would agree. I hope people don't expect it immediately though. I wouldn't anticipate Wentz being a real difference maker until at least year 3.

It took Smith 6 years.

Reality Fan

May 3 2016, 01:26 PM

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 3 2016, 11:53 AM)

Oh I would agree. I hope people don't expect it immediately though. I wouldn't anticipate Wentz being a real difference maker until at least year 3.

It took Smith 6 years.

The reason it took Smith 6 years is that San Fran was a mess. Part of the problem with being drafted No. 1 is that the team taking you is usually a mess. Smith had many of the same difficulties you like to ignore with Bradford. Beyond the injuries, 6 different OCs in 6 years.

I think it is reasonable to give him a year, that is it. He was not drafted in the 3rd or 4th round.....all the assets he cost? He should really be playing this year like Mariota or Winston. The Eagles are in better shape than either of those respective teams so his early learning curve should be much easier. (and the Niners did not trade any assets to draft Smith)

Part of the reason you wanted them to trade for this guy is that he is allegedly a QB god....They should be able to get him on the field sooner rather than later.....that is a Franchise QB.....Tannehill, Ryan, Carr, Palmer, Wilson, Roethlesberger....all started right away...is he not as good as them? You better hope he is a hell of a lot better.

For folks who like to cry about excuses for Bradford it is nice to see the excuses already starting for Super 11.

mcnabbulous

May 3 2016, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 01:26 PM)

The reason it took Smith 6 years is that San Fran was a mess. Part of the problem with being drafted No. 1 is that the team taking you is usually a mess. Smith had many of the same difficulties you like to ignore with Bradford. Beyond the injuries, 6 different OCs in 6 years.

I think it is reasonable to give him a year, that is it. He was not drafted in the 3rd or 4th round.....all the assets he cost? He should really be playing this year like Mariota or Winston. The Eagles are in better shape than either of those respective teams so his early learning curve should be much easier. (and the Niners did not trade any assets to draft Smith)

Part of the reason you wanted them to trade for this guy is that he is allegedly a QB god....They should be able to get him on the field sooner rather than later.....that is a Franchise QB.....Tannehill, Ryan, Carr, Palmer, Wilson, Roethlesberger....all started right away...is he not as good as them? You better hope he is a hell of a lot better.

For folks who like to cry about excuses for Bradford it is nice to see the excuses already starting for Super 11.

What excuses? I don't mind if he starts this year, but it's not like Mariota and Winston accomplished a whole lot as immediate starters.

I expect Wentz to be eased in this year, be an above average starter next, and a good starter on a competitive team in year 3. No excuses otherwise.

I don't really expect him to be dramatically better than Wilson or Roethlisberger. I'm not sure why that would be the expectation. But I want him to be in that area.

The reason Alex Smith struggled was as much a product of his college experience as it was the shit show he was in in SF. He had never played in a pro offense. It took time, as it does for most of these guys.

Reality Fan

May 3 2016, 01:58 PM

I don't get it. Why not have high expectations for a guy you traded a lot of assets for?

Griffin was not a matter of the NFL catching up with him, he hurt his knee. (and they played him with a bad knee)A lot of guys taken in the first round start right away and do well, certainly in year 2. When you trade so much to get someone you raise the expectation for him and rightly so. For what he cost he needs to be on the field this year and reasonably good this year.*and then get better from there. There are too many guys under center that start right away and play well, he needs to be one of those guys or we have grossly overpaid for him.

mcnabbulous

May 3 2016, 02:10 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 01:58 PM)

I don't get it. Why not have high expectations for a guy you traded a lot of assets for?

Griffin was not a matter of the NFL catching up with him, he hurt his knee. (and they played him with a bad knee)A lot of guys taken in the first round start right away and do well, certainly in year 2. When you trade so much to get someone you raise the expectation for him and rightly so. For what he cost he needs to be on the field this year and reasonably good this year.*and then get better from there. There are too many guys under center that start right away and play well, he needs to be one of those guys or we have grossly overpaid for him.

Who are the guys you're referring to? You keep saying "a lot of guys". I can think of a few, but I can't think of a lot. I think Wentz should be above average by year 2. That's pretty decent in my book for a young starter.

I guess I don't know who you're referring to and what you would consider "reasonably good"

Phits

May 3 2016, 02:58 PM

I am hoping that if he sees the field this season it is in a very limited capacity. Next season he should be starting at the mid way point.

There's absolutely no reason to rush him into action.

Reality Fan

May 3 2016, 03:10 PM

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 3 2016, 03:10 PM)

Who are the guys you're referring to? You keep saying "a lot of guys". I can think of a few, but I can't think of a lot. I think Wentz should be above average by year 2. That's pretty decent in my book for a young starter.

I guess I don't know who you're referring to and what you would consider "reasonably good"

There...and that is nearly a third of all the starters in the league....

There's a pretty wide range of "success" in that bunch. I would expect Wentz to fit in there somewhere. Not too many of those guys were tearing up the league before year 3.

I don't think year one will define his career in any capacity.

Reality Fan

May 3 2016, 03:27 PM

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 3 2016, 04:13 PM)

There's a pretty wide range of "success" in that bunch. I would expect Wentz to fit in there somewhere. Not too many of those guys were tearing up the league before year 3.

I don't think year one will define his career in any capacity.

I don't expect him to win a SB in year one....I want him to play and if he makes a PB like Bridgewater in year 2 I am happy.

Big Ben was 22-3 and a starter in his first 2 years....Wilson was a PB from the start.....Matt Ryan 20-10 in his first 2 years and a PB in year 3. Flacco has won from the start......Derek Carr was a PB in year 2....as was Palmer....Cam was a PB in year 1.....and Dalton was a PB in year 1....

So, again, if Wentz is the potential messiah then don't you think he should perform up to the level of these guys when they started. He even has the benefit of a decent roster.

mcnabbulous

May 3 2016, 03:48 PM

I think it's shortsighted to worry about year one. There are examples of good and bad. I won't take too much away from it either way.

What we used to draft him, again, is a big picture thing. He's the second pick in the draft. He better be good. Because we traded up to get him doesn't mean he needs to be extra good. He needs to be a high end QB. If that doesn't happen until year 3, I'm okay with it.

Phits

May 3 2016, 04:05 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 04:12 PM)

When you spend so much to get a guy he should be ready to play or else you reached to get him....the reason you draft a guy so high is that he is ready to be the guy.

-or- because you see the potential in him. It takes patience and proper grooming to bring him along slowly so that he can reach said potential....

QUOTE

Well these two bulls are sittin’ on a grassy knoll overlooking a herd of Guernseys. The baby bull says, “Hey Pop… lets run down and fuck one of those cows.” The Papa bull says,“No son. Let’s walk down…Fuck ‘em all.”

There's no urgent need for him to see on-field regular season action. Build the team around him so that he is inserted into a very good situation when the time is right. Unlike Big Ben, R. Wilson, Flacco and others we don't have an established dominant defense to help off-set the learning curve.

I don't think the Eagles expect him to play this year and most of next season. Hence the reason they invested heavily in Bradford and Daniels. The SB trade demands is the monkey wrench in the plans.

Reality Fan

May 3 2016, 04:17 PM

So excuses work for him already?...lol

You nurse potential in later rounds....not in the top 5 pick....and you certainly do not wait 2 years....well no NFL team does....Rodgers was bot a late first round pick and an anomaly in that Favre was in a position to decide when he was done.

and what does "others" mean? I agree that Wilson and Ben and Flacco had good defenses.....but most of them did not....

You spend what they did to get a stud and you play him....unless, apparently, Philly is pioneering a new philosophy....

The whole point of taking a guy that high is that he is close to ready to go.

Spending a premium to get in position to draft him definitely adds pressure to any timeline.

mcnabbulous

May 3 2016, 04:22 PM

Hypothetically, if he had an Aaron Rodgers like career trajectory, would you care that he sat early despite us giving up so much to get him?

It just feels very arbitrary, that's all.

Reality Fan

May 3 2016, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ May 3 2016, 05:22 PM)

Hypothetically, if he had an Aaron Rodgers like career trajectory, would you care that he sat early despite us giving up so much to get him?

It just feels very arbitrary, that's all.

Yes...because while Rodgers sat the Pack won....and they did not give up anything to draft him so getting him did not impact their team growth.

It is not arbitrary at all. Arbitrary is holding the golden boy to a different standard than every other top 10 pick.

mcnabbulous

May 3 2016, 04:32 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 04:25 PM)

Arbitrary is holding the golden boy to a different standard than every other top 10 pick.

Those aren't my standards. I wouldn't necessarily play a top-10 pick if I didn't think he was ready. And I wouldn't be reluctant to draft a guy who wasn't ready, if I believed he had the potential to be great.

Different strokes it seems.

Phits

May 3 2016, 04:50 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 05:17 PM)

and what does "others" mean? I agree that Wilson and Ben and Flacco had good defenses.....but most of them did not....

I was using the names of the examples you referenced. As youngsters Ben, Flacco and Wilson played with greatdefenses. Palmer/Dalton and Cam played with good defenses.

QUOTE

You spend what they did to get a stud and you play him....unless, apparently, Philly is pioneering a new philosophy....

The whole point of taking a guy that high is that he is close to ready to go.

While that is usually the common method, it isn't necessarily true in all scenarios.

QUOTE

Spending a premium to get in position to draft him definitely adds pressure to any timeline.

Pressure from who? The fans... the media? This calculated move seems to have the approval of the owner. It may be non-traditional, but trying to follow the 'SB championship blueprint' hasn't worked out for us so far. They are doing what they believe to be the right thing.

Eyrie

May 3 2016, 05:01 PM

I'm relaxed about letting Wentz sit for 2016 but if he isn't ready to be the starter in 2017 then serious questions have to be asked about whether he will ever be ready to be the franchise QB that he was drafted to be.

Zero

May 3 2016, 06:10 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 05:17 PM)

So excuses work for him already?...lol

You nurse potential in later rounds....not in the top 5 pick....and you certainly do not wait 2 years....well no NFL team does....Rodgers was bot a late first round pick and an anomaly in that Favre was in a position to decide when he was done.

and what does "others" mean? I agree that Wilson and Ben and Flacco had good defenses.....but most of them did not....

You spend what they did to get a stud and you play him....unless, apparently, Philly is pioneering a new philosophy....

The whole point of taking a guy that high is that he is close to ready to go.

Spending a premium to get in position to draft him definitely adds pressure to any timeline.

The Eagles have expressed their view that the QB is the single most important position on the team. They've said that teams without franchise caliber QBs rarely win championships. They don't anticipate being in position to draft a QB they believe has the potential to be that QB again and they think Wentz has all of the tools but that he needs time and coaching to reach the point where he will be the player they need. You're right, this is essentially a new approach with what they gave up to get Wentz.

It may or may not work, but I applaud them for having a plan and doing what they could to start it in motion. I'll be disappointed if they voluntarily move away from it regardless of how quickly Wentz progresses. Give him a year, or 12-14 games to sit. watch and learn. JMO

nephillymike

May 3 2016, 07:18 PM

I think they do intend for him to compete for the starters job but they can't say it because there's only so many tissues for Bradford's tears!!!

All joking aside, I think this year you play to win at all costs from Day 1. If that results in him not being the starter week one because one or two of the other guys are better, then so be it. If he is better, throw him in. If they did verbally commit to Sam getting a shot, I have no problem living up to that for this year while we're in it as long as he wins the job and plays well enough to keep it.

If we are eliminated from the playoffs during the regular season, the Kid starts, no questions asked.

Next year, the expectations are that he starts from day 1.

If he isn't good enough, or doesn't project to being good enough early in the next year, he sits until he wins the job in year 2.

This is the NFL. You earn your playing time.

Reality Fan

May 3 2016, 08:22 PM

QUOTE (Zero @ May 3 2016, 07:10 PM)

The Eagles have expressed their view that the QB is the single most important position on the team. They've said that teams without franchise caliber QBs rarely win championships. They don't anticipate being in position to draft a QB they believe has the potential to be that QB again and they think Wentz has all of the tools but that he needs time and coaching to reach the point where he will be the player they need. You're right, this is essentially a new approach with what they gave up to get Wentz.

It may or may not work, but I applaud them for having a plan and doing what they could to start it in motion. I'll be disappointed if they voluntarily move away from it regardless of how quickly Wentz progresses. Give him a year, or 12-14 games to sit. watch and learn. JMO

Bullshit...

They traded a ton for him...he needs to start from day 1 like 10 of the top current NFL starters...if he can't than it was too expensive. It is one thing to draft someone at your spot, if you need to spend resources to move up there is more pressure for success. If you spend a ton the pressure is multiplied.

It is cute how so many other current guys have done it yet the "no excuses" crowd have started making excuses for the fledgling prince.

nephillymike

May 3 2016, 08:27 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 08:22 PM)

Bullshit...

They traded a ton for him...he needs to start from day 1 like 10 of the top current NFL starters...if he can't than it was too expensive. It is one thing to draft someone at your spot, if you need to spend resources to move up there is more pressure for success. If you spend a ton the pressure is multiplied.

It is cute how so many other current guys have done it yet the "no excuses" crowd have started making excuses for the fledgling prince.

Fuck it!!

You convinced me.

Start the Kid, bench Bradford.

We're in agreement.

Move along................................................

Phits

May 3 2016, 08:30 PM

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ May 3 2016, 09:22 PM)

It is one thing to draft someone at your spot, if you need to spend resources to move up there is more pressure for success. If you spend a ton the pressure is multiplied.

Again, where is this pressure coming from? The entire management team (including ownership) seems to have bought into the idea of taking their time with the developmental process.

The monkey wrench is Bradford's trade demand, which may or may not affect the team's timeline.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.